DiaMedica Therapeutics Inc

Current report

Changes in funding and staffing for the FDA, SEC and other government agencies could prevent our new products from being developed, approved or commercialized in a timely manner or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal functions upon which the operation of our business substantially relies and which could negatively impact our business.

Current report

The ability and propensity of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels; payment of user fees and reauthorization of user fee programs; staffing and other resource limitations; its ability to hire and retain key personnel; statutory, regulatory and policy changes; and other business disruptions. Average review times at the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, the funding of government agencies that support research and development activities that pertain to FDA review, such as research to understand new technologies or establish new standards, is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. Such government agencies also have been subject to reductions in funding and downsizing of agency staffing levels, which could materially impact our business and operations. The current U.S. Presidential administration has implemented or proposed policies that may affect the FDA review process, including efforts to downsize the federal workforce, remove job elimination protections for federal workers, limit certain communications, and potentially impact user fee reauthorization. If political pressure, global health concerns, or other factors prevent the FDA or other regulatory authorities from conducting their regular reviews or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Previous report

The expansion of our DM199 clinical development program into PE involves certain risks related to timing, regulatory approvals, costs and enrollment. Furthermore, because the proof-of-concept clinical trial will be investigator sponsored, we will have less control over the clinical trial and may face additional risks. Any such risks could adversely impact our business and results of operations and financial position and harm our ability to raise additional financing, if and when needed.

Previous report

On October 9, 2024, we announced the receipt of regulatory approval from SAHPRA to initiate an investigator-sponsored study of DM199 in PE. We are financially supporting the conduct of the Phase 2 open-label, single center, single-arm, safety and pharmacodynamic, proof-of-concept, investigator-sponsored study of DM199 for the treatment of PE at the Tygerberg Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa. We anticipate that up to 90 women with PE and potentially an additional 30 subjects with fetal growth restriction will be evaluated. The first subject was enrolled in the fourth quarter of 2024. Part 1A topline study results are intended to demonstrate initial proof-of-concept results including whether DM199 is safe, lowers blood pressure, and dilates intrauterine arteries to increase placental blood flow and are expected in the first half of 2025.

Previous report

The expansion of our DM199 clinical development program into PE and the progress of that program may not occur on the anticipated timeline or at all. In addition, the Phase 2 trial may cost us more than we anticipate. Additionally, because the trial will be investigator-sponsored, we will have less control over the timing and costs of the study and the ability to recruit trial subjects than if we conducted the study with our own personnel. There is no guarantee that our physician collaborators will devote adequate time and resources to perform this study and/or maintain adequate clinical trial information regarding our product candidate. If these third parties fail to meet expected deadlines, fail to transfer to us any regulatory information in a timely manner, fail to adhere to the study protocol or fail to act in accordance with regulatory requirements or our agreement with them, or if they otherwise perform in a substandard manner or in a way that compromises the quality or accuracy of their activities or the data they obtain, then our current or future clinical trials may be extended or delayed with additional costs incurred, or our data may be rejected by applicable regulatory agencies. Any of these risks could adversely impact our business, results of operations and financial position, including our ability to raise additional financing, if and when needed.

Previous report

Our drug candidate, DM199, is currently in clinical development in two areas, AIS and PE. Data from the investigator-sponsored Phase 2 PE clinical trial may adversely affect our current ReMEDy2 clinical trial, which could adversely impact our business, results of operations and financial position and harm our ability to raise additional financing, if and when needed.

Previous report

We anticipate Part 1A topline study results for the Phase 2 PE clinical trial in the first half of 2025. Part 1A topline study results are intended to demonstrate whether DM199 is safe for PE patients, lowers blood pressure and/or dilates intrauterine arteries to increase placental blood flow. The results from Part 1A of the study may not be consistent with the safety results from our prior ReMEDy1 trial of DM199 for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke or certain efficacy results from that trial. If the Part 1A topline study results are inconsistent, inaccurate, incomplete or otherwise demonstrate that DM199 is not safe, does not lower blood pressure or dilate intrauterine arteries, our current ReMEDy2 clinical trial of DM199 for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke may be adversely affected. Should this occur, we may be required to repeat clinical or non-clinical studies, our clinical development plans may be significantly delayed, and we may incur additional costs, which could adversely impact our business, results of operations and financial position. Adverse results from the Part 1A topline study also could adversely affect our ability to raise additional financing, if and when needed.